Premium
USING MODIFIED VISUAL‐INSPECTION CRITERIA TO INTERPRET FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OUTCOMES
Author(s) -
Roane Henry S.,
Fisher Wayne W.,
Kelley Michael E.,
Mevers Joanna L.,
Bouxsein Kelly J.
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
journal of applied behavior analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.1
H-Index - 76
eISSN - 1938-3703
pISSN - 0021-8855
DOI - 10.1002/jaba.13
Subject(s) - psychology , categorization , applied behavior analysis , functional analysis , reinforcement , contingency , contingency management , identification (biology) , visual inspection , intervention (counseling) , cognitive psychology , clinical psychology , artificial intelligence , social psychology , developmental psychology , computer science , psychiatry , autism , biochemistry , chemistry , linguistics , philosophy , botany , biology , gene
Abstract The development of functional analysis (FA) methodologies allows the identification of the reinforcers that maintain problem behavior and improved intervention efficacy in the form of function‐based treatments. Despite the profound impact of FA on clinical practice and research, questions still remain about the methods by which clinicians and researchers interpret FA graphs. In the current study, 141 FA data sets were evaluated using the structured visual‐inspection criteria developed by Hagopian et al. (1997). However, the criteria were modified for FAs of varying lengths. Interobserver agreement assessments revealed high agreement coefficients across expert judges, postdoctoral reviewers, master's‐level reviewers, and postbaccalaureate reviewers. Once the validity of the modified visual‐inspection procedures was established, the utility of those procedures was examined by using them to categorize the maintaining reinforcement contingency related to problem behavior for all 141 data sets and for the 101 participants who contributed to the 141 data sets.